Steve McIntyre has blogged an excellent must read technical explanation about IPCC and the “Trick” on the newly provisioned climateaudit.org now on WordPress.com. He provides the context that CRU says the emails lack. So, I thought this would be a good time to have a look at the word “trick” and how it was used in the leaked CRU emails.
A few days ago, I had an email exchange with NRO’s Planet Gore editor Chris Horner who wondered how often the word “trick” was used in the CRU emails. Of course the instance that everyone remembers is this email from November 16th, 1999:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The explanation for that use of the word came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd:
The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
Well that certainly seems reasonable on the surface. For example, an American colloquialism is “that’ll do the trick”, when a solution to a problem is found. I hadn’t thought much more about it until I was reminded of this again this past week, when Dr. Michael Mann, in an interview with the State College, PA newspaper Centre Daily, defending himself and Dr. Jones about the language used in the emails.
Mann said Jones was using the word “trick” in the sense of “here’s the trick for solving that problem,” not to indicate anything inappropriate.
So if Dr. Jones uses such colloquialisms regularly, it stands to reason that we should find a number of similar instances of the word “trick” in the CRU emails over the decade that the emails spanned. I decided to find out.
I setup a file search program with a simple mission, scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word “trick” used by itself, excluding other words like “Patrick” that would have “trick” embedded in it. Eight files were returned with that condition:
I was rather surprised that so few files met the condition, so I ran it again to be sure, same result. I took off the quotes to see just how many emails contained some permutation of the letters t r i c k.
The answer was 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the FOIA2009.zip file:
So that we can all see how often these scientists used the work trick colloquially, and not part of another word, I’m showing the 8 instances of “trick” by itself highlighted in yellow below, plus another instance where “trick” is part of another word “tricky”:
======
======
======
======
======
======
======
======
The CRU emails can be found at http://eastangliaemails.com/ if you care to look at the originals.
======
So as you can see, we really have only one instance where Dr. Jones uses the word “trick” in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word “trick” in other emails, but only this one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue.
As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do.
Perhaps, but you’d think we’d see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus emails we have, there’s no other use of the word “trick” by Dr. Jones that I could find related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.
Add the technical proof that Steve McIntyre has done today:
Which shows that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the decline is not shown in the IPCC report as shown in the red line above.
And the fact that McIntyre brought this to their attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process:
To my knowledge, no one noticed or reported this truncation until my Climate Audit post in 2005 here. The deletion of the decline was repeated in the 2007 Assessment Report First Order and Second Order Drafts, once again without any disclosure. No dendrochronologist recorded any objection in the Review Comments to either draft. As a reviewer of the Second Order Draft, I asked the IPCC in the strongest possible terms to show the decline reported at CA here:
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]
They refused, stating that this would be “inappropriate”, though a short discussion on the divergence was added – a discussion that was itself never presented to external peer reviewers.
Add all these things up, and I’m ready to say PANTS ON FIRE! regarding Dr. Jones claim of “ It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray (07:27:35:)
“…a logger in torn pants with a hardhat on.”
Is that what you dream about, Pamela? Seriously, though, wasn’t it you that begged to differ with the UK Met Office about what this summer would be like, because of the Jet Stream? They were horribly wrong, of course, so what’s the winter got in store for us on our side of the pond please? Oh, and this has just reminded me of an old Canadian song that went, in part:
” I see you are a logger,
And not just a common bum,
For no-one but a logger,
Stirs his coffee with his thumb.”
As dry air cools by 1deg C per 100 metres altitude and we have seen a warming of 0.6 deg C over the last 100 years why would glaciers retreat by more than 60 metres altitude in the last 100 years? What’s the trick?
If the direst of AGW predictions come true and the temperature rises by 6 deg C why would glaciers retreat more than 600 metres in altitude? What’s the trick?
If the melting of glaciers in the Himalyas is a concern for the future of the water supply and if the glaciers were to start to grow because of cutting CO2 wouldn’t this lengthening cause a water supply concern as well? What’s the trick?
Lokki (06:23:50) :
Yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head; the facts no longer matter to the political class.
That is the hallmark of tyranny in any age.
Once that is established, the next step is refreshment. In the Jeffersonian context. It is nearly a law of nature;
Truth is discovered. Truth leads to success and prosperity. Prosperity leads to abandonment of care and principle which leads to contempt and debauchery which leads to suffering and resentment (tyranny) which leads to struggle and commitment which leads us back to . . . (drum roll) Truth.
(Imagine a sine wave here).
A VERY good discussion of Climategate with Don Imus and Joe Bastardi of Penn State. Joe’s worried about the possibility of more cooling. Imus suggests that Algore is, “One of the biggest phonies on the planet!”
Lots of laughs! “Daily Dose of Imus – Featured Guest Videos”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/our-team/on-air/imus/index.html
Pamela Gray (07:27:35:)
DaveF (09:26:53) :
Thanks Pamela. It is interesting that the other poster who commented on your post simply resorted to ridicule and name calling. Perhaps he is the one titillated by a logger in torn pants.
I have two trees I planted in my yard 30 (thirty) years ago. They are close enough together that I believe it can be assumed they have the same temperatures and soil conditions. They differ only in the amount of sunlight they receive. One is beneath a canopy of older trees so that it recieves only diffuse light. One receives at least 6 (six) hours daily of direct sunlight. They are holly trees and may not have rings but they are still trees. The one receiving direct sunlight is approximately 20 (twenty) feet tall and the one receiving diffuse sunlight is 4 (four) feet tall.
As a tree farmer and expert with a chainsaw it is easy to observe the different rate of growth of various species of pine trees (tons of rings there). It is common practice where my timberland is located for everyone to thin a stand of pine timber 15 years or so after it has been planted either with seeds or seedlings. The reason for thinning the trees is to admit more sunlilght and visibly increase growth rate.
Sorry, I do not have torn pants. I do not wear a hard hat or reinforced pants. Have not yet had the saw rebound to the top of my head or become entangled in my pants.
Do a search on “pine growth rate studies” mates.
go search for “trusty ruler” or “little cheat”
Both quality climate science phrases I’m sure.
I just searched Pubmed and the phrase “hide the …” did not appear once in the entire literature. “Trick” was used thousands of times.
A very interestimng exercise. Perhaps it could be followed up by looking for words such as “hide”, “conceal” and “bury”.
Ok, in the email I was looking at above talking about rejection rates, what is the hypothesis they are testing? Does anyone know?
De Rode Willem (01:18:24) :
Isn’t it time to admit that the earth is indeed warming up ? And if every possible parameter is in the cooling mood….wouldn’t it not time to think that maybe, maybe mankind has some influence on that warming ? If not, then it is certainly time to act durable with fossile energy. No matter how much there is still in stock, the less we consume the longer we have fun of it.
I’m going to give Mr. Willem the benefit of the doubt and assume English is not his native language, e.g.,
(1) “…cooling mood…”,
(2) “…wouldn’t it not [be] time to think”,
(3) “…it is certainly time to act durable with fossile energy”,
(4) “…we have fun of it.” Furthermore, I’m going to extend his logic to its extreme–specifically,
(5)”…the less we consume the longer we have fun of it.”
Don’t consume any and we’ll have it forever. You first, Mr. Willem.
Son of Muldar: the source of water from the Himalayas is snow, not glaciers. And, if the world temp rose, would not the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere rise as well, which would lead to even more preceipitation (ie snow) as it cooled in the upper atmosphere. Maybe I’m wrong on that but it seems logical to me.
So many top executives of A.I.G. , Goldman Sachs , CitiCorp and others receiving bonuses for their participation in the ‘ planned ‘ financial collaspe of world economies. You can call them bonuses , executive compensation , retention bonuses , payouts or grants , I call it Hush Money .
Since 1990 , it was revealed in the ‘ leaked ‘ emails from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit that Phil Jones had collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants and in return , the world had gotten in return ‘ tricked ‘ data from the CRU , IPCC and the UNEP .
When it was stated that the term ‘ trick ‘ is a clever way of doing something – a short cut can be a trick in science , the term ” Trick ” also refers to a Prostitute taking Money for a Lewd Act !
son of mulder (09:28:09) : The trick is the following:
1.At those altitudes temperatures are below the freezing point of water.
2.Ice diminishes because of two phenomena: Compression (heat by) and sublimation (low air pressure makes water evaporate directly into water vapour)
3.To have ice you need first WATER.
4.To have water you need evaporation from the seas.
5.To have evaporation from the seas you need temperature increase.
6.Then for glaciers to retreat you need decreased evaporation. (Less water to be frozen up there)
7.So for glaciers to retreat you need COOL oceans and NOT WARM oceans.
Bob Kutz (09:44:47)
Thanks Bob, so now you know Al Gore’s future. The “next turn of the screw ” wisely described in your post.
Gotta get more popcorn!
I think it’s pointless to obsess over the word “trick”. What if Jones had used the word “method” instead? The procedure he referred to would still be every bit as dishonest. (But if you are going to focus on individual words, “hide” is more telling than “trick”, as it more-clearly indicates intent to deceive.)
MS THESAURUS:
TRICK: (meaning): Deception(n.): ploy/ruse/hoax/swindle/trap/scam
Joke(n.): prank/stunt/caper/mischief
Deceive(v.): cheat/mislead/trap/fool/hoodwink/con
Knack(n.): technique/secret/habit
Fake(adj.): false/artificial/hoax/pretend
Antonym: REAL
Of the 23 words used to describe TRICK, only “technique” has a positive spin.
I would have to guess that the “tricky” part for all those participants in the Global Warming Conference who left their wives back home will be to convince their wives that they themselves weren’t one of the “tricks” that the legal Danish prostitutes turned. That will be “tricky” indeed.
Rep. Markey tries to explain away the “hiding the decline” talk with a new analysis: http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/DOCS/SelectCommitteeAnalysisStolenElectronicDocuments.pdf The Committee argues, “Placing this 1999 email in context of the scientific literature of the time demonstrates that the techniques and issues the email raises were openly discussed in peer-reviewed journals. Even if the tree ring data set in question is ignored, the stolen emails do not substantially alter the multiple lines of independent scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.”
They obviously didn’t bother to read this post.
***************
Andrew Suprun (06:17:58) :
Let’s see what happens if we take Dr Jones interpretation at face value. Dr Jones says his email should be interpreted as “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [clever thing] of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
it doesn’t sound any better now, does it?
Andrew.
********************
No, it doesn’t. But one thing I haven’t heard anyone mention is that he says “adding in the real temps to EACH series.” That certainly looks like he is adding the instrumental temps to each series of tree rings or sediments or whatever other proxies are used. Is that the way others read this? If so, it would really bias the final result.
Sublimation does not require reduced atmospheric pressure. Just put an ice cube you have measured in a saucer in your refrigerator’s freezer compartment. After a month, measure the ice cube again.
Wind does help the sublimation process quite nicely, however. The greater the velocity of the wind, the faster water ice sublimates.
I couldn’t agree more with this post. A trick is something a person does to mislead them. And that’s exactly what Jones and the rest of the CRU/GISS/IPCC consensus cabal did to the public of the world.
The Climategate documents show that this despicable bunch did all of the following to further their unjustified belief in CAGW:-
Fudged the thermometer data set.
Used statistical methods to hide information contrary to their belief.
Conspired to prevent legal FOIA requests from being implemented.
Worked as a team to pervert the peer review process, so that pro-CAGW papers were published while sceptical papers were not.
Colluded with the press to spread alarm, in furtherance of their political agenda.
These people have no right to call themselves scientists, and have done untold harm by there blatant miss-information.
never forget it was andrew revkins – “the renowned” as australian abc’s tony jones is still calling him as late as this week on “lateline” – who was up and running with the “trick” “explanation” from none other than the Mann himself within hours of the release of the emails/documents. nice trick, andrew:
20 Nov. NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
amusing how revkin also says NYT contacted “several scientists and others ”
“and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.
Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.”
given revkin’s own involvement in the emails, it’s breathtaking how the paper that sets the agenda for the US corporate media, gets to set up the “talking points” for all subsequent media…or should i say media silence!
Vadinho (10:51:47:)
I’m so sorry that my sense of humour does not find favour with you, but I guess we’re all different. I don’t mind in the least you taking the mickey out of me but I do object to it being said that I am guilty of name-calling. What name have I called Pamela Gray, or indeed, anyone else, please?